This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-11-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| As correctly observed by the trial court, the correction sought would add new owners, aside from the fact that the property covered by the subject tax declaration is already under the name of VMMEI since 1988. It must be stressed that before a tax declaration is issued by the city assessor, he has to ensure that the taxpayer submits the proper documents which indicate the nature of his right or claim over the property covered by the tax declaration. Clearly, the actual exercise of the city assessor's duty to issue tax declarations is necessarily discretionary as it involves judgment on his part in examining the documents presented. Well-settled is the rule that mandamus may not be availed of to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way, or to retract or reverse an action already taken in the exercise of either.[114] | |||||
|
2010-05-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court may, and given the alarming developments of late in the run-up to the 10 May 2010 elections, should compel Comelec to disclose fully the complete details of its preparations. In Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission,[12] the Court stressed that the constitutional duty to disclose information of public concern may be compelled by mandamus, to wit: Thus, while the manner of examining public records may be subject to reasonable regulation by the government agency in custody thereof, the duty to disclose the information of public concern, and to afford access to public records cannot be discretionary on the part of said agencies. Certainly, its performance cannot be made contingent upon the discretion of such agencies. Otherwise, the enjoyment of the constitutional right may be rendered nugatory by any whimsical exercise of agency discretion. The constitutional duty, not being discretionary, its performance may be compelled by a writ of mandamus in a proper case. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2007-02-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The remedy of appeal to the LBAA is available from an adverse ruling or action of the provincial, city or municipal assessor in the assessment of the property. It follows then that the determination made by the respondent Provincial Assessor with regard to the taxability of the subject real properties falls within its power to assess properties for taxation purposes subject to appeal before the LBAA.[33] | |||||
|
2005-12-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We disagree. It is well-settled in Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan City v. Local Government of Caloocan City[29] that all administrative remedies must be exhausted before availing of the judicial remedies. Thus:The petitioner cannot bypass the authority of the concerned administrative agencies and directly seek redress from the courts even on the pretext of raising a supposedly pure question of law without violating the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Hence, when the law provides for remedies against the action of an administrative board, body, or officer, as in the case at bar, relief to the courts can be made only after exhausting all remedies provided therein. Otherwise stated, before seeking the intervention of the courts, it is a precondition that petitioner should first avail of all the means afforded by the administrative processes. If PNOC-EDC was not satisfied with the assessment of its property, it should have appealed to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals within 60 days from receipt of the written notice of assessment. Instead, it waited until the issuance of a warrant of levy before it filed a petition for injunction in the regional trial court, which was not in accordance with the remedies provided in the LGC. | |||||
|
2004-12-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Equally specious is petitioner's train of thought that the requisite of filing a motion for reconsideration of the challenged resolution of the Bureau prior to filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals is dispensable in this case inasmuch as such petition is anchored on a purely question of law.[33] It is a settled rule, it is true, that on purely legal question the aggrieved party need not exhaust administrative remedies.[34] This is because nothing of an administrative nature is to be done or can be done in the administrative forum.[35] But the pivotal issue in this case of whether petitioner, not the NPC, should supply the power needs of PSC requires a probe into the technical and financial capability of petitioner to meet the requirements of bulk power supply of PSC - a question of fact, the determination of which is within the expertise of the Bureau. The contention of petitioner that the issue is on pure question of law is, therefore, hollow. Petitioner cannot in the guise of raising pure question of law, seek judicial intervention without exhausting the available administrative remedies.[36] | |||||
|
2003-12-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan City v. Local Government of Caloocan City,[14] the Court affirmed the dismissal of a petition for mandamus to compel the City of Caloocan to classify certain parcels of land as actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes and to grant the corresponding tax exemption. It ruled that petitioner cannot in the guise of raising pure question of law, seek judicial intervention without exhausting the available administrative remedies, thus | |||||